piano tunings

I'm thinking of putting my acoustic piano back into a non-ET tuning again-- I used to
have it in Kirnberger III but returned it to ET because the tuner couldn't really do a
good job. What tunings would you recommend that might sound great for avant-jazz
(extended post-jazz) as well as for more traditional fare? -Justin

>What tunings would you recommend that might sound great for
>avant-jazz (extended post-jazz) as well as for more traditional
>fare? -Justin

Hi Justin,

I'm sure others will have suggestions here. I suppose it depends
on how weird you want to get... For me, earlier well temperaments
such as Kirnberger III and (my fav) Kellner's 'Bach' tuning are
too 'bad' in the remote keys for modern repertoire. Your mileage
may differ.

I'm about to put the following tuning on my piano...

!
Alaska V (1197/702/696.375), Carl Lumma, 6 June 2003.
12
!
97.875
201.375
299.25
397.125
500.625
598.5
696.375
799.875
897.75
995.625
1099.125
1197.0
!
! Four 403-cent 3rds on C#-E-G-Bb.
! Eight 397-cent 3rds elsewhere.

...note that octaves in this tuning are 3 cents *flat*. While
tests on my synth are really encouraging, this could be a problem
on the piano, where stretch is usually expected.

If you want to play it safe, I'd suggest Young...

!
1/6th Pythag. comma well temperament, after Young.
12
!
90.0
196.0
294.0
392.0
498.0
588.0
698.0
792.0
894.0
996.0
1090.0
2/1
!
! 5ths are 702.0 and 698.0 cents.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >What tunings would you recommend that might sound great for
> >avant-jazz (extended post-jazz) as well as for more traditional
> >fare? -Justin
>
> Hi Justin,
>
> I'm sure others will have suggestions here. I suppose it depends
> on how weird you want to get...

If you aren't afraid of weird, try bifrost, grail or even ratwolf. If
you *are* afraid of weird, what about Robert Wendell's well-
temperament?

>> I'm sure others will have suggestions here. I suppose it depends
>> on how weird you want to get...
>
>If you aren't afraid of weird, try bifrost, grail or even ratwolf.
>If you *are* afraid of weird, what about Robert Wendell's well-
>temperament?

What about it?

I'm still waiting for pairs of nearly-tuned, but differntly-beating
chords to render for a blind listening test. . .

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> I'm still waiting for pairs of nearly-tuned, but differntly-beating
> chords to render for a blind listening test. . .

That's a plan. The Wilson triad, at least, strikes me as having a
subtle quality different from nearby meantones.

>> I'm still waiting for pairs of nearly-tuned, but differntly-beating
>> chords to render for a blind listening test. . .
>
>That's a plan. The Wilson triad, at least, strikes me as having a
>subtle quality different from nearby meantones.

Cool. I have had this experience with the Wilson meantone, but it
is the only beating-savvy temperament with which I've had it. But
it's hard to be sure with the other temperament bits in the mix.
Hence, chords.

-Carl

Weird is fine, but it shouldn't be unusable for jazz or extended tonality. What are the
cents values for bifrost, grail & ratwolf?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> > >What tunings would you recommend that might sound great for
> > >avant-jazz (extended post-jazz) as well as for more traditional
> > >fare? -Justin
> >
> > Hi Justin,
> >
> > I'm sure others will have suggestions here. I suppose it depends
> > on how weird you want to get...
>
> If you aren't afraid of weird, try bifrost, grail or even ratwolf. If
> you *are* afraid of weird, what about Robert Wendell's well-
> temperament?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin Weaver" <improvist@u...> wrote:
> I'm thinking of putting my acoustic piano back into a non-ET tuning
again-- I used to
> have it in Kirnberger III but returned it to ET because the tuner
couldn't really do a
> good job. What tunings would you recommend that might sound great
for avant-jazz
> (extended post-jazz) as well as for more traditional fare? -Justin

you might want to try bob wendell's recent breakthrough piano
tunings -- they are well-temperaments, and have been reported to
sound wonderful for avant-jazz as well as classical music.

>you might want to try bob wendell's recent breakthrough piano
>tunings

Breakthrough?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> >you might want to try bob wendell's recent breakthrough piano
> >tunings
>
> Breakthrough?
>
> -Carl

yes, that's how he described it.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin Weaver" <improvist@u...> wrote:

> Weird is fine, but it shouldn't be unusable for jazz or extended
tonality.

I have many examples up on xenharmony.org; no jazz as yet but I've
been thinking about what would be good. It *does* work with 20th
century music; the Shostakovitch 10th symphony movement I just did in
asbru sounds fine, at least to me.

What are the
> cents values for bifrost, grail & ratwolf?

I'd suggest reading about them on xenharmony.org or the archives
here, but here goes:

! bifrost.scl
! [45/64*5^(1/4), 1/2*5^(1/2), 16/45*5^(3/4), 5/4, 2/5*5^(3/4),
15/16*5^(1/4), 5^(1/4),
! 1/2*10^(1/2), 1/2*5^(3/4), 8/15*5^(3/4), 5/4*5^(1/4), 2]
!
Six meantone fifths, four pure fifths, two on each side, two fifths
of sqrt(2048/2025 sqrt(5))
12
!
86.802144
193.156856
299.511569
386.313714
503.421572
584.847143
696.578428
793.156857
889.735285
1001.466571
1082.892142
1200.000000

! grail.scl
Holy Grail circulating temperament with two 14/11 and one 9/7 major
third
12
!
86.869027
195.623009
304.376991
391.246018
504.376991
578.080960
695.623009
795.623009
895.623009
1013.165056
1086.869026
1200.000000

! asbru.scl
Modified bifrost
12
!
89.601917
200.000000
310.398083
400.000000
510.398083
589.601917
700.000000
800.000000
900.000000
1010.398083
1089.601917
1200.000000

! ratwolf.scl
!
Eleven fifths of (418/5)^(1/11) and one 20/13 wolf
12
!
70.863424
191.675263
312.487105
383.350528
504.162369
575.025791
695.837632
766.701055
887.512896
1008.324736
1079.188160
1200.000000

on 7/17/03 6:02 PM, Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org> wrote:

>> What tunings would you recommend that might sound great for
>> avant-jazz (extended post-jazz) as well as for more traditional
>> fare? -Justin
>
> Hi Justin,
>
> I'm sure others will have suggestions here. I suppose it depends
> on how weird you want to get... For me, earlier well temperaments
> such as Kirnberger III and (my fav) Kellner's 'Bach' tuning are
> too 'bad' in the remote keys for modern repertoire.

For synthesized organ, I ended up not liking them (Kellner, Barnes,
Werkmeister) much for Messiaen. For other things I liked Barnes so much
(even though Carl thinks Barnes is "Busy"), that I played with diluting
Barnes to 70% (30% ET) and I found that that amount of dilution took the
edge off the bad keys which came up so often in Messiaen.

Of the Alaska series, number 6 was the best for Messiaen, to my ears.

> Your mileage
> may differ.
>
> I'm about to put the following tuning on my piano...
>
> !
> Alaska V (1197/702/696.375), Carl Lumma, 6 June 2003.
> 12
> !
> 97.875
> 201.375
> 299.25
> 397.125
> 500.625
> 598.5
> 696.375
> 799.875
> 897.75
> 995.625
> 1099.125
> 1197.0
> !
> ! Four 403-cent 3rds on C#-E-G-Bb.
> ! Eight 397-cent 3rds elsewhere.
>
> ...note that octaves in this tuning are 3 cents *flat*. While
> tests on my synth are really encouraging, this could be a problem
> on the piano, where stretch is usually expected.

It strikes me that if you apply your scale unaltered, based on tuning the
fundamental, you really won't really end up with your scale as you intended
it.

If you have a standard stretch pattern available, as I understand piano
tuners have had for some time, why not simply superimpose such a standard
stretch on top of your scale?

Better yet if you could know something about what stretch your piano really
needs, but I'll bet this actually varies with the scale you put on it. So
the ultimate thing would be to find a bearing plan for your scale, no?
Isn't there software that generates bearing plans for scales? I guess not
or I would have heard it mentioned already. But it gives me ideas.

> If you want to play it safe, I'd suggest Young...

Interesting. I'll have to go try Young with Messiaen.

-Kurt

>
> !
> 1/6th Pythag. comma well temperament, after Young.
> 12
> !
> 90.0
> 196.0
> 294.0
> 392.0
> 498.0
> 588.0
> 698.0
> 792.0
> 894.0
> 996.0
> 1090.0
> 2/1
> !
> ! 5ths are 702.0 and 698.0 cents.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for
> the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

>> !
>> Alaska V (1197/702/696.375), Carl Lumma, 6 June 2003.
>> 12
>> !
>> 97.875
>> 201.375
>> 299.25
>> 397.125
>> 500.625
>> 598.5
>> 696.375
>> 799.875
>> 897.75
>> 995.625
>> 1099.125
>> 1197.0
>> !
>> ! Four 403-cent 3rds on C#-E-G-Bb.
>> ! Eight 397-cent 3rds elsewhere.
>>
>> ...note that octaves in this tuning are 3 cents *flat*. While
>> tests on my synth are really encouraging, this could be a problem
>> on the piano, where stretch is usually expected.
>
>It strikes me that if you apply your scale unaltered, based on
>tuning the fundamental, you really won't really end up with your
>scale as you intended it.

That's true in a sense.

>If you have a standard stretch pattern available, as I understand
>piano tuners have had for some time, why not simply superimpose such
>a standard stretch on top of your scale?

It's my understanding that there normally isn't any stretch in the
central 3 octaves. Ed Foote, where are you?

Ideally, I'd work out a bearing plan for the scale. Maybe I should...

>So the ultimate thing would be to find a bearing plan for your scale,
>no?

:)

>Isn't there software that generates bearing plans for scales?

Hmm, there probably is. I wonder if any support arbitrary
'octaves'?

-Carl